Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
is Leela a female engine ?...cuz its a girl name uknow.
My robot has a female voice. My wife says she cleans better than a man.
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
Aug 18, 2020
0
#3383
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
is Leela a female engine ?...cuz its a girl name uknow.
If you take away its graphics card it plays like a big girl's blouse.
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
btickler escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
No, you do not need to traverse all of the game tree to make a proof. It's the only way we know of to prove it but it doesn't mean it's the only possible way we could prove it. Wikipedia explicitly says so...
Define what you think you mean by"game tree" .
You don't have to cover the Shannon number (10^120) in a proof, but you do have to traverse 10^46 positions. Maybe you should read the actual thread on it, which is 6 years old and 343 pages and covers everything WIkipedia does and a lot more.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/will-computers-ever-solve-chess?page=1
Ok, show me the proof that you need to "traverse" all legal positions to solve chess...
It's in the thread I linked. Educate yourself. The current situation is that all technologies in existence and even technologies predicted to be reasonably possible in the far flung future cannot handle solving chess. They are not even able to scratch the surface. If your position is otherwise, the burden of proof is clearly on you and your ilk 
.
GMproposedsolutions wrote:
btickler wrote:
GMproposedsolutions wrote:
10^46 is excessive in my opinion
Luckily, opinion is largely meaningless in this particular area. But hey, thank goodness you came along and at least tried to let the world know that they were looking at this all wrong, and that you could solve the problem, alone, with a donated PC.
That was a feeble attempt of you making a case about anything I wrote. Feel proud of being you as I wouldn't feel comfortable performing your actions. Making logical fallacies and making unwarranted personal attacks is not in me, but good thing we have people like you else what would our existence be like had we stopped wars, stopped all crimes, and treated everyone with respect? It would be a rather dull place.
Translation: "You got me there".
Moving on (from this exchange).
MARattigan wrote:
You're assuming that the only valid method of proof is brute force and ignorance. If you want to prove that the arithmetic mean of two positive real numbers is greater than the geometric mean, a really bad way of attempting it would be to try it out for every pair of positive real numbers.
I didn't say that a chess beginner could solve the game in 100 bytes. I said that he could write a routine to win from any winning king and rook versus king position in less than a couple of hundred bytes. I'll write you a javascript for it if you like.
For this I would have to consider maybe a half dozen generic positions, not the the circa 400,000 positions in the endgame.
You omitted to note that I would estimate less than 1K for the 1MB+ EGTB bishop and knight endgame. I could also write you a javascript for that. Again this would be based on about fifteen properties of the position rather than considering the 11 million individual positions. The compression ratio has jumped from 14 to 1000+ and I expect would continue to increase exponentially for an optimal routine as the number of positions in an endgame increases.
This is not a proof that a conceivably practicable solution of chess on these lines exists, just a conjecture, but @pfren has already pointed out, a solution by EGTBs appears to be completely impracticable simply from a storage point of view. If such a practicable solution does exist, the hard bit is finding it.
Your premise is flawed. It's right there in your first claim: "You have completely solved (Basic Rules) chess if you can produce a routine that guarantees a win from any winning position."
Sure. This would be pretty darn easy to solve if human beings just had a definition of a "winning position" that carries all the way to the starting position in chess ...we could also predict the future of the entire universe, if only we knew the relative velocity and vector of every particle in it and then had a computer that could just crank out the answer instantly, and then store it, and then communicate it to us in some way we could actually absorb. Simple and easy to communicate method for predicting the future. Same basic level of impossible.
We're already doing that (trying to prove what a winning position is), via working backwards from what humans beings and their understanding of mathematics have already determined to be the best "winning position" understanding that we have. You are extrapolating that you can define in a direct rules-related manner what a "winning position" from some opening or middlegame position. But that understanding does not exist, nor can you prove it without going through the same traversing we are talking about. The current method is not entirely brute force. It's already taking into account all the basic rules of chess. Brute force would be checking every position regardless of legality. Can there be some ways of cutting down the traversing farther? Perhaps. But even if you do this so well that you eliminate 999,999 out of every million positions, you are still solving for 10^40. It's not even remotely in the range of possible for the reasonably foreseeable future of humanity.
Go ahead and write your Javascript . You might want to at least switch to assembly language, though. Javascript is hugely inefficient as a high level language, even more so than most compiled languages.
Aug 18, 2020
0
#3387
With like maybe a half dozen rules I think you could define a winning strategy for a rook and king vs a king. No need to have analysed every possible position for the best move or generate a "game tree". I know this is a simple example, but couldn't similar rules be made for different sets of pieces and/or types of positions? I know this is a wild speculation, but might a future computer be able to from the opening position find a set of rules of strategy that forces either a win or draw without examining every position?
Aug 18, 2020
0
#3388
btickler escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
btickler escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
No, you do not need to traverse all of the game tree to make a proof. It's the only way we know of to prove it but it doesn't mean it's the only possible way we could prove it. Wikipedia explicitly says so...
Define what you think you mean by"game tree" .
You don't have to cover the Shannon number (10^120) in a proof, but you do have to traverse 10^46 positions. Maybe you should read the actual thread on it, which is 6 years old and 343 pages and covers everything WIkipedia does and a lot more.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/will-computers-ever-solve-chess?page=1
Ok, show me the proof that you need to "traverse" all legal positions to solve chess...
It's in the thread I linked. Educate yourself. The current situation is that all technologies in existence and even technologies predicted to be reasonably possible in the far flung future cannot handle solving chess. They are not even able to scratch the surface. If your position is otherwise, the burden of proof is clearly on you and your ilk .
Lol, yeah sure I'll sweep through dozens upon dozens of thread pages just to find out there is no proof, then again, you don't even seem to understand what you are discussing.
exactly Ziggy. one doesnt hafta do a exhaustive compilation. u can stop once the beautiful, remarkable, & boneheaded human brain has correctly confirmed a winner. like u say...simplify by combining silicon+organic. take 7-piece TB's e.g. there are abt 4.23x10^14 unique and legal positions (in a abt 18 terabytes).
now. eliminate the dubious & blunderful openings that rely on opp error to convert a point. of which there are many...many. it ends up boiling to a light mix of openings and a not-so-light bevy of middlegames. so. applying some common sense w/ a brain box may produce a #.
philosophically, does this # exist ?...yes. trust me its out there. s/w. so. if we find it can we comprehend it ?...not if we use IM Pfren's brain atoms count azza reference we wont. but if we use a few a Avacados #'s its possible...i think (blink-blink).
Arthur a child could write a strategy how to win with R and K vs K.
But as you learn more about chess writing such programs is not so easy with more pieces on the board.
A child could also write a strategy on how to DRAW with a lone K vs K and B and P with the bishop and pawn protected. [by the way this type of endgame where Black might force a draw in such an endgame is one more piece of evidence that chess is a draw.]
Not true
Aug 18, 2020
0
#3392
btickler wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
You're assuming that the only valid method of proof is brute force and ignorance. If you want to prove that the arithmetic mean of two positive real numbers is greater than the geometric mean, a really bad way of attempting it would be to try it out for every pair of positive real numbers.
I didn't say that a chess beginner could solve the game in 100 bytes. I said that he could write a routine to win from any winning king and rook versus king position in less than a couple of hundred bytes. I'll write you a javascript for it if you like.
For this I would have to consider maybe a half dozen generic positions, not the the circa 400,000 positions in the endgame.
You omitted to note that I would estimate less than 1K for the 1MB+ EGTB bishop and knight endgame. I could also write you a javascript for that. Again this would be based on about fifteen properties of the position rather than considering the 11 million individual positions. The compression ratio has jumped from 14 to 1000+ and I expect would continue to increase exponentially for an optimal routine as the number of positions in an endgame increases.
This is not a proof that a conceivably practicable solution of chess on these lines exists, just a conjecture, but @pfren has already pointed out, a solution by EGTBs appears to be completely impracticable simply from a storage point of view. If such a practicable solution does exist, the hard bit is finding it.
Your premise is flawed. It's right there in your first claim: "You have completely solved (Basic Rules) chess if you can produce a routine that guarantees a win from any winning position."
Sure. This would be pretty darn easy to solve if human beings just had a definition of a "winning position" that carries all the way to the starting position in chess ...
--- It's your response that is flawed. We have a definition of what is a winning position (actually two because the FIDE rules define two distinct games). In neither case is it pretty darn easy to solve.
We're already doing that (trying to prove what a winning position is), via working backwards from what humans beings and their understanding of mathematics have already determined to be the best "winning position" understanding that we have. You are extrapolating that you can define in a direct rules-related manner what a "winning position" from some opening or middlegame position.
--- I'm not extrapolating that I could do that. I'm conjecturing only that such routines exist in a form that might fit on computer storage not too remote from what is currently feasible. That such rules exist is obvious, the question is only, "what is the minimum size?". As I said, finding small routines is non-trivial. (Openings and middle games are just types of endgame.)
But that understanding does not exist, nor can you prove it without going through the same traversing we are talking about. The current method is not entirely brute force. It's already taking into account all the basic rules of chess. Brute force would be checking every position regardless of legality.
--- The understanding doesn't currently exist for all endgames. That is not to say that relatively compact rules do not exist.
Where the (human) understanding does exist, it doesn't consist of traversing large numbers of positions.
I'd still regard EGTB generation as a BFI routine. The fact that many (not by any means all) illegal positions are excluded doesn't really change that.
Can there be some ways of cutting down the traversing farther? Perhaps. But even if you do this so well that you eliminate 999,999 out of every million positions, you are still solving for 10^40. It's not even remotely in the range of possible for the reasonably foreseeable future of humanity.
--- As I pointed out, writing a routine for KRK would be very straightforward. It would solve the 400,000 or so positions in that endgame. No specific positions need be included in the routine (not even the draws - the only requirement is that it wins from winning positions).
Go ahead and write your Javascript . You might want to at least switch to assembly language, though. Javascript is hugely inefficient as a high level language, even more so than most compiled languages.
--- Most of the programs I've written have been in IBM 360 Assembler and its descendants and my storage estimates were based on that. I offered Javascript as easy to translate into whatever takes your fancy. I doubt if a user would actually notice any difference in performance.
Aug 18, 2020
0
#3393
Optimissed wrote:
...
If chess isn't to be a draw, there would have to be positions that came about through normal, fairly aggressive and pointed lines of play that could be extended to produce a zugzwang in all possible variations. The idea of that is ridiculous, since the procedure, working one way, can obviously be reversed. Thinking chess could be a forced win with optimum play isn't thinking clearly.
I don't understand what you mean by reversing the procedure here. Obviously moves like QxQ can't be reversed under normal playing rules. Can you clarify?
Why would your reasoning apply to the initial chess position but not the positions in posts #3523 and #3532?
True.
THIS JUST IN: PONZ PROVES CHESS IS A WIN FOR BLACK!
Forget all the propaganda and Fake News from the grand masters and strongest players!! The C D and E players were correct. After all in their games Black won often!
It is well known that the game of 1-3-5-7 Nim is a forced win for the 2nd players. In poker it is often an advantage to move 2nd or later.
White by moving first breaks the symmetrically and Black can pounce on that mistake!!
In Ponz's own correspondence games--Black almost always won. In a national correspondence championship Ponz won ALL 7 games in the Finals,
So what happened?? PATRIOT was right--the players were not trying to win and thus the very low number of wins. If only the players at top correspondence chess decided to forget the Fake News that chess was a draw--we would see more and more wins.!
So Ponz has put the theory of trying hard with Black to the test!
Ponz put out a couple of challenges on chess,com where PONZ would Only Play Black vs experts and masters and grand masters. Ponz's opponents would play White and were allowed to use chess engines and data bases. Also all opponents were allowed 3 days per move. Ponz was determined to try and win every game and he actually scored very well vs his opponents.
Here is one of the games where Ponz played Black against a grand master. Please note that in all of the trillions of games played--this is the first game played where neither side made a mistake and yet on e side won [Black] Nobody can point out a losing mistake made by the grand master![after Black made his 20th move White resigned]
Grand master vs Ponz
Aug 18, 2020
0
#3396
Optimissed wrote:
In general, if one side can lose several moves in a complex and unclear but sharp position to produce a zugzwang, the other side can do that too and since that's the only way to win (hypothetically) it can't be done.
Sorry don't understand that either. The question is about best play, so whether or not the position is complex or unclear is irrelevant.
MARattigan wrote:
btickler wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
You're assuming that the only valid method of proof is brute force and ignorance. If you want to prove that the arithmetic mean of two positive real numbers is greater than the geometric mean, a really bad way of attempting it would be to try it out for every pair of positive real numbers.
I didn't say that a chess beginner could solve the game in 100 bytes. I said that he could write a routine to win from any winning king and rook versus king position in less than a couple of hundred bytes. I'll write you a javascript for it if you like.
For this I would have to consider maybe a half dozen generic positions, not the the circa 400,000 positions in the endgame.
You omitted to note that I would estimate less than 1K for the 1MB+ EGTB bishop and knight endgame. I could also write you a javascript for that. Again this would be based on about fifteen properties of the position rather than considering the 11 million individual positions. The compression ratio has jumped from 14 to 1000+ and I expect would continue to increase exponentially for an optimal routine as the number of positions in an endgame increases.
This is not a proof that a conceivably practicable solution of chess on these lines exists, just a conjecture, but @pfren has already pointed out, a solution by EGTBs appears to be completely impracticable simply from a storage point of view. If such a practicable solution does exist, the hard bit is finding it.
Your premise is flawed. It's right there in your first claim: "You have completely solved (Basic Rules) chess if you can produce a routine that guarantees a win from any winning position."
Sure. This would be pretty darn easy to solve if human beings just had a definition of a "winning position" that carries all the way to the starting position in chess ...
--- It's your response that is flawed. We have a definition of what is a winning position (actually two because the FIDE rules define two distinct games). In neither case is it pretty darn easy to solve.
We're already doing that (trying to prove what a winning position is), via working backwards from what humans beings and their understanding of mathematics have already determined to be the best "winning position" understanding that we have. You are extrapolating that you can define in a direct rules-related manner what a "winning position" from some opening or middlegame position.
--- I'm not extrapolating that I could do that. I'm conjecturing only that such routines exist in a form that might fit on computer storage not too remote from what is currently feasible. That such rules exist is obvious, the question is only, "what is the minimum size?". As I said, finding small routines is non-trivial. (Openings and middle games are just types of endgame.)
But that understanding does not exist, nor can you prove it without going through the same traversing we are talking about. The current method is not entirely brute force. It's already taking into account all the basic rules of chess. Brute force would be checking every position regardless of legality.
--- The understanding doesn't currently exist for all endgames. That is not to say that relatively compact rules do not exist.
Where the (human) understanding does exist, it doesn't consist of traversing large numbers of positions.
I'd still regard EGTB generation as a BFI routine. The fact that many (not by any means all) illegal positions are excluded doesn't really change that.
Can there be some ways of cutting down the traversing farther? Perhaps. But even if you do this so well that you eliminate 999,999 out of every million positions, you are still solving for 10^40. It's not even remotely in the range of possible for the reasonably foreseeable future of humanity.
--- As I pointed out, writing a routine for KRK would be very straightforward. It would solve the 400,000 or so positions in that endgame. No specific positions need be included in the routine (not even the draws - the only requirement is that it wins from winning positions).
Go ahead and write your Javascript . You might want to at least switch to assembly language, though. Javascript is hugely inefficient as a high level language, even more so than most compiled languages.
--- Most of the programs I've written have been in IBM 360 Assembler and its descendants and my storage estimates were based on that. I offered Javascript as easy to translate into whatever takes your fancy. I doubt if a user would actually notice any difference in performance.
If it's as easy as you think it is, why not go ahead and do it? You'd be famous overnight all around the world .
What you (and GMproposedsolution and Optimmised) are doing here is bringing a layman's understanding to a problem and then insulting the expertise of all the people that have actually taken the time and effort to work on and actually understand the problem over the past several decades.
What you offer is complete conjecture posited from an hour or two of pondering an issue from a 10,000ft perspective. It's remarkably similar to a certain someone stating that they think scientists should look into injecting bleach to combat Covid-19. As if such an obvious and simple solution were to have been completely overlooked by thousands and thousands of scientists working on the issue...
Aug 18, 2020
0
#3398
Optimissed wrote:
3523 etc are irrelevant since they can't be forced into.
What I was saying is that if either of those diagrams replaced the diagram in FIDE Art. 2.3 your argument couldn't be correct, because both are demonstrably won for White with best play. Therefore your argument is either invalid or makes some (unstated) assumption which is true of the standard starting position but not of the positions in posts #3523 and #3532.
If the latter, what would that assumption be? Would it apply equally to all FRC positions?
Aug 18, 2020
0
#3399
btickler wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
btickler wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
You're assuming that the only valid method of proof is brute force and ignorance. If you want to prove that the arithmetic mean of two positive real numbers is greater than the geometric mean, a really bad way of attempting it would be to try it out for every pair of positive real numbers.
I didn't say that a chess beginner could solve the game in 100 bytes. I said that he could write a routine to win from any winning king and rook versus king position in less than a couple of hundred bytes. I'll write you a javascript for it if you like.
For this I would have to consider maybe a half dozen generic positions, not the the circa 400,000 positions in the endgame.
You omitted to note that I would estimate less than 1K for the 1MB+ EGTB bishop and knight endgame. I could also write you a javascript for that. Again this would be based on about fifteen properties of the position rather than considering the 11 million individual positions. The compression ratio has jumped from 14 to 1000+ and I expect would continue to increase exponentially for an optimal routine as the number of positions in an endgame increases.
This is not a proof that a conceivably practicable solution of chess on these lines exists, just a conjecture, but @pfren has already pointed out, a solution by EGTBs appears to be completely impracticable simply from a storage point of view. If such a practicable solution does exist, the hard bit is finding it.
Your premise is flawed. It's right there in your first claim: "You have completely solved (Basic Rules) chess if you can produce a routine that guarantees a win from any winning position."
Sure. This would be pretty darn easy to solve if human beings just had a definition of a "winning position" that carries all the way to the starting position in chess ...
--- It's your response that is flawed. We have a definition of what is a winning position (actually two because the FIDE rules define two distinct games). In neither case is it pretty darn easy to solve.
We're already doing that (trying to prove what a winning position is), via working backwards from what humans beings and their understanding of mathematics have already determined to be the best "winning position" understanding that we have. You are extrapolating that you can define in a direct rules-related manner what a "winning position" from some opening or middlegame position.
--- I'm not extrapolating that I could do that. I'm conjecturing only that such routines exist in a form that might fit on computer storage not too remote from what is currently feasible. That such rules exist is obvious, the question is only, "what is the minimum size?". As I said, finding small routines is non-trivial. (Openings and middle games are just types of endgame.)
But that understanding does not exist, nor can you prove it without going through the same traversing we are talking about. The current method is not entirely brute force. It's already taking into account all the basic rules of chess. Brute force would be checking every position regardless of legality.
--- The understanding doesn't currently exist for all endgames. That is not to say that relatively compact rules do not exist.
Where the (human) understanding does exist, it doesn't consist of traversing large numbers of positions.
I'd still regard EGTB generation as a BFI routine. The fact that many (not by any means all) illegal positions are excluded doesn't really change that.
Can there be some ways of cutting down the traversing farther? Perhaps. But even if you do this so well that you eliminate 999,999 out of every million positions, you are still solving for 10^40. It's not even remotely in the range of possible for the reasonably foreseeable future of humanity.
--- As I pointed out, writing a routine for KRK would be very straightforward. It would solve the 400,000 or so positions in that endgame. No specific positions need be included in the routine (not even the draws - the only requirement is that it wins from winning positions).
Go ahead and write your Javascript . You might want to at least switch to assembly language, though. Javascript is hugely inefficient as a high level language, even more so than most compiled languages.
--- Most of the programs I've written have been in IBM 360 Assembler and its descendants and my storage estimates were based on that. I offered Javascript as easy to translate into whatever takes your fancy. I doubt if a user would actually notice any difference in performance.
If it's as easy as you think it is, why not go ahead and do it? You'd be famous overnight all around the world .
What you (and GMproposedsolution and Optimmised) are doing here is bringing a layman's understanding to a problem and then insulting the expertise of all the people that have actually taken the time and effort to work on and actually understand the problem over the past several decades.
What you offer is complete conjecture posited from an hour or two of pondering an issue from a 10,000ft perspective. It's remarkably similar to a certain someone stating that they think scientists should look into injecting bleach to combat Covid-19. As if such an obvious and simple solution were to have been completely overlooked by thousands and thousands of scientists working on the issue...
Where did I say it would be easy? Where, for that matter did I say that it was anything but complete conjecture?
I tend to agree with @pfren that the EGTB approach for the full game of chess is impracticable from a storage point of view, so if there is a solution that could be practicably stored, what I suggested is the only alternative I can see. I would guess that all the people I'm apparently insulting would agree with that.
It corresponds roughly with the approach adopted by experts prior to the invention of the computer over the past several centuries.
And, further, where did I suggest injecting bleach to combat Covid-19?
MARattigan wrote:
Where did I say it would be easy? Where, for that matter did I say that it was anything but complete conjecture?
I tend to agree with @pfren that the EGTB approach for the full game of chess is impracticable from a storage point of view, so if there is a solution that could be practicably stored, what I suggested is the only alternative I can see.
It corresponds roughly with the approach adopted by experts prior to the invention of the computer over the past several centuries.
And, further, where did I suggest injecting bleach to combat Covid-19?
The bleach thing is from current events and was a comparison, I did not say that you are "a certain someone"...it been all over the news, etc.
True. Now, please stop talking about this. This is getting tiresome. Move on.